Chills

That is categorically 100% NOT true. 
I went from Adobe to Affinity.
There is NO WAY I would use Linux as a desktop system.

i just plotted the Linux values from this website from 2010 until now:

@Chills ↓ look at the Last 90 days on there
also yes the userbase has been oscillating but it is still possible to see a fairly big upward trend in the last few years
 
pookiebear i think you meant macOS because if you didn't: can you tell me what's android's kernel?

Creating a version for Linux is akin to creating one for Android. No one is willing to pay the price for anything useful. 10 bucks for an Android app won't pay to keep the electricity on anywhere in the world. Neither will a few Linux users.
There's a thread here somewhere about Linux (still not) running on Bottles (or anything else Linux, for that matter.)

Serif is not in a war with Adobe. They just use another licensing model. There are zero politics in it...

Statistics based on very small groups, represented by developers or VFX artists, are not very relevant, if thinking to the general target of the Affinity Suite. A slightly more significative statistic, that of desktop OSs used to browse the web, say that Linux is a little more than 1% of the total (compared to the 16% of the Mac). A group of users browsing the web is likely more easy to overlap to a group of users making illustration at some degree.
Paolo
 

There is no update Serif have no plans to port to Linux.

I am writing to request an update on the potential release of a Linux port of the Affinity Suite. I understand that in the past, the small user base for Linux compared to macOS and Windows was a concern. However, I would like to bring to your attention that the number of Linux users has significantly increased since the forum posts discussing this issue in 2016-2018. This survey conducted by Stack Overflow, demonstrates the increased adoption of Linux by professionals developers. A similar survey show the same increase in VFX studios, and other artistic industries for stability and deployment reasons. Both shows that Linux exceed macOS's user base by a significant amount.
I also wanted to mention the availability of Flatpak / Flathub as a solution to the issue of portability and stability across different Linux distributions. In addition, I wanted to address the concern of profitability in the development of a Linux release. While it is not a perfect solution, I have seen that the Affinity Suite primarily uses OpenGL, who have been implemented well on Linux and .NET 4.8 achieve acceptable stability through the use of wine.
As a professional photo editor, vector graphics, and page layout software, the Affinity Suite would be a valuable addition to the Linux ecosystem, filling a gap in the market for high-quality professional software on this platform. I hope that you will consider these points in your current position on a Linux release.
I respectfully request that Could you provide us with your current stance on a Linux release, taking into account the points mentioned above.

I think that is where a lot of people disagree. If Adobe would provide a buyout option that would lock the software at a specific version to keep running perpetually, then they might have a good price point. But, $240 for only one year of functionality isn't a good price in my opinion. And that is just for Photoshop, if you aren't wanting Illustrator and Indesign.

It's hardly surprising if, after 13 pages of going round and round in circles, nobody can remember what the original point of this post was!  DAM!  I certainly can't!

All those attempts at abbreviating makes me wonder if Serif needs to rename their products with less generic names. Needing to spell out the entire name of Affinity Photo, Affinity Designer, or Affinity Publisher every time does feel tedious.
Microsoft already has their own Publisher and then Photo and especially Designer seem particularly nonspecific. The older Serif product names before Affinity would probably work like PagePlus, PhotoPlus, DrawPlus, etc. or maybe since the Affinity products are a professional rebrand they could be called PagePro, PhotoPro, and DrawPro.
And then to get back on topic we could have ManagePro or AssetPro for the LightRoom competitor.

That explains a lot... You have no idea about what we are discussing. No wonder you keep missing the point.
 

That explains a lot... You have no idea about what we are discussing. No wonder you keep missing the point.
 

And there you prove my point.   You said a DAM and integrating it in to AP (Photo). You don't understand, and that detail is huge.

The discussion for a DAM is a LOT more than an image catalogue.  I don't often use APhoto, but I live in AP (Publisher) and need to use a lot of digital assets, including images   Likewise ADesign people have different criteria and assets they want to catalogue. 

The database system needs to be a LOT more than just images, I assume it will have IPTC hierarchical keyword system?  Obviously, it needs to understand the current Spectrum cataloguing system.    There is a lot more to it than just extended EXIF especially if the files are not images.
It is easy to come up with a small image catalogue system but a lot more difficult to do a decent DAM. As I said before the devil is in the detail and details take time and expense. I have seen more than one project thrown together in the manner you are suggesting, only to have it scraped and started again from the ground up for V2 because  V1 had so many poor design choices and restrictions after it got  out into the field.
     

It seems perfectly germane to a discussion where people talk about creating a new app (especially one that has to integrate with existing software on three different OS) as though it was a couple of hour's work!
On the other hand, if all you want is a simple image viewer, why are people so keen on Affinity creating their own, when there are already other ones available (such as XnView MP)? 

No, It isn't a fairly trivial task. 

It might seem simple to knock up a simple spec, but the devil is in the detail.  And that gets time-consuming and expensive.

Then maybe that afternoon they could create a new PDF editing app, maybe a video editor as well, if they do a couple of hours overtime!

No, It isn't a fairly trivial task. 

It might seem simple to knock up a simple spec, but the devil is in the detail.  And that gets time-consuming and expensive.

Paper, scissors and a bit of glue – how long could have it taken???
 

I have both Adobe Photoshop and Affinity Photo, in fact I started on PS decades ago. I find for what I do Affinity Photo is fine. 
I also prefer Publisher to InDesign.  
There is nothing embarrassing about the Affinity tools.

And that is exactly what is needed in A. Publisher.  
 
When I select fonts for a specific project, I mark them as Favourites, and they appear in the Favourite Subset.
Though, it would help if you could have multiple groups of Favourites.(with the ability to have the same font in more than one group.)
Also you can have Character styles which includes the font.  That is another way of sub setting them.

No.

People aren't afraid to use AI, they have ethical qualms and are smart enough to see the way AI will be used to replace their jobs -- if we let it happen

What a bizarre comparison. Y2K and AI. They are not even remotely related. Again not sure why you can't seem to grasp the idea that if there was generative AI in Affinity you would not have to use it. You don't have to use it in Photoshop, no gun to your head. You Simply go about as normal without it. Your way is so backwards it is not even funny. Like let's make a car and keep the radio separate so those who don't want the distraction of music or news while they drive don't have it. Those who want it can hook up the radio to a trailer and connect to the car and play through loud speakers so you can hear it while driving. The whole premise, like pretty much all of your threads and posts are nonsensical. You want a company to promise to never use AI in their software but then want them to make a stand alone AI that only uses their artists as references. So you want limited AI that is a pain to use because actual pro uses are not using AI to create pictures from scratch, they are using it primarily to fix and adjust images easily. So now with your stand alone AI app you just have a really limited picture creator. If I wanted to just make a picture with AI why would I use Affinity? There are countless others out there without restrictions and completely open to give much better results. 

I've never heard anyone say that. Sounds like a strawman